Why Conservation Matters for the AMP Redesign and the Hill’s Reconciliation Bill
The following analysis was produced by AFT’s Water Initiative Director Michelle Perez, Research Scientist Jennifer Tillman, and Conservation and Climate Policy Manager Samantha Levy. Additional research and analysis were provided by Robert Parkhurst and Rebecca Wright of Sierra View Solutions.
Helping more farmers and ranchers voluntarily adopt conservation practices is one of the most efficient ways to spend public dollars to support farm profitability while also achieving environmental outcomes. While the 2022 USDA Census brought some welcome news related to conservation practice adoption, such as a 17% increase in adoption of cover crops from 2017, conservation practices are still underutilized on farms. For example, cover crops are only planted on 7% of eligible cropland acres. And while no-till and reduced till acres have experienced major gains in the past, there was no change in the number of combined acres in these practices since the 2017 census. Why is that?
Despite proven economic and environmental benefits, producers face numerous barriers in adopting these practices, including risk, cost, and lack of information and implementation support. Farm Bill conservation programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), and the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) – coupled with technical assistance from Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) field specialists, non-profits (NGOs), technical service providers, and peers – help producers overcome these barriers so they, and society, can reap the benefits of these practices while minimizing operational risk.
In addition, state-level conservation programs, and the former Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities (PCSC) program, now being re-launched as the “Advancing Markets for Producers” (AMP) initiative, are providing essential supplemental support. To help shed light on the importance of these investments while this redesign of AMP takes place, AFT analyzed public data on the former PCSC program. We are now providing a series of articles to discuss the many benefits that conservation practices provide to producers and why it makes sense to continue to support them in the new AMP initiative as well as through activities on the Hill.
The PCSC program was terminated on April 14, 2025. The press release announcing the end of the program can be found here. Projects that were terminated have been invited to apply to the AMP program by Jun 20, 2025.
Long before the practices selected by the 135 PCSC projects were known as “climate-smart,” these were known as practices that prevent soil erosion, protect water quality, make plants and animals more resilient, provide wildlife habitat, promote energy efficiency, and more.
Many of these practices were initiated as far back as 1935 when the nation was battling the “Dust Bowl” (see photo above), and the USDA first formed the Soil Conservation Service (later renamed the Natural Resource Conservation Service [NRCS] we know today). Over the past 90 years, NRCS has continued to add and refine these conservation practices, with some of the latest practices being added as recently as 2022.
AFT Conservation Benefit Analysis
AFT analyzed publicly available data from the PCSC to determine the top 10 practices selected by projects (see table below). Seven of the top 10 practices are focused on cropland, two are meant for grazing (Prescribed Grazing and Pasture/Hay Planting), and one is an agroforestry practice (Tree/Shrub Establishment). The most popular practice, chosen by 93 of 135 projects, was Cover Crops, while Conservation Cover came in as the 10th most popular practice with 48 projects choosing to promote it.
USDA NRCS continually updates conservation practices with formal specifications to effectively address resource concerns associated with agriculture. There are six categories of resource concerns targeted by NRCS’s conservation practices – Soil, Water, Air, Plant, Animal, and Energy – also known as the SWAPA-E concerns, as shown in the table above.
In 2003, to identify the right conservation practice for each resource concern, the agency also developed the Conservation Practices Physical Effects (CPPE) rating system. The CPPE provides qualitative descriptions and assigns between -5 to +5 points to rate each conservation practice’s ability to address each of 47 sub-categories of resource concerns. The sub-categories are broken down as follows: 11 for Soil, 20 for Water, 5 for Air, 4 for Plants, 5 for Animals, and 2 for Energy.
AFT’s analysis of the CPPE benefit ratings for each of the top 10 practices above shows that a whopping six out of 10 practices address ALL six resource concerns (e.g., they scored a 1 or more for sub-categories in Soil, Water, Air, Plant, Animal, and Health) (see table above). These many conservation co-benefits include:
Addressing soil resources, such as reducing sheet, rill, and wind erosion, and increasing aggregate instability and soil organic matter.
Improving water quality, such as reducing the transportation of nutrients, pesticides, and sediment to surface and ground waters.
Enhancing air quality, such as reducing objectionable odors, particulate matter (PM) and ozone precursors, and greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs).
Increasing plant health, such as improving plant productivity, health, structure, and composition.
Improving livestock animal health and increasing habitat for terrestrial and aquatic wildlife and invertebrates.
Implementing energy efficiency, such as increasing the energy efficiency of producer operations.
Which SWAPA-E Conservation Benefits do the Top 3 Most Popular Practices Offer?
Cover crops: Cover crops address all six resource concern categories, offering numerous soil health benefits, ranging from reducing different kinds of soil erosion to reducing organic matter depletion and soil organism habitat loss to increasing aggregate stability or soil structure by creating pathways for roots and water to increase water infiltration and aeration. They also reduce sediment and pesticide transport to surface water and help reduce emissions of particulate matter (PM) and greenhouse gases (GHGs). Cover crops help by significantly reducing plant pest pressure and improving plant productivity and health. Finally, cover crops can provide terrestrial habitat for wildlife and invertebrates and can improve the energy efficiency of farming/ranching practices and field operations.
Nutrient Management: Nutrient management addresses four of the six resource concerns. It improves soil health by addressing organic matter depletion and improving aggregate stability; reduces the runoff of nutrients, pathogens and chemicals from manure, bio solids, or compost applications to surface and groundwater; improves air quality by reducing emissions of PM & precursors, ozone precursors, objectionable odor, airborne reactive nitrogen emissions and emission of GHGs; and increases plant productivity and health.
Reduced Tillage/No-till: No-till and reduced tillage practices also offer all six resource concern benefits like cover crops. Both offer significant reductions in sheet, rill, and wind erosion, as well as improvements in soil organic matter, soil organism habitat, and aggregate stability. Both practices offer reductions in sediment and pesticides transported to surface water. Reducing tillage or adopting no till significantly reduces PM and GHS, as well as ozone precursors and improves plant productivity and health, terrestrial wildlife invertebrate habitat, and significantly increases energy efficiency of field operations.
Economic Benefits
In addition to these many conservation benefits, several of these top 10 practices offer significant economic benefits too. What AFT refers to as “The Big 3” — cover crops, nutrient management, and reduced tillage or no-till — are commonly associated with positive economic benefits. This is especially true when farmers adopt several soil health practices in combination, known as a suite of practices. We discuss each of the economic benefits in more detail below.
Cover Crops
In the 2022-2023 National Cover Crop Survey Report by the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program, 795 growers from across the country responded to questions about cover crop use and impact. Corn and soybeans farmers with 10 or more years of cover crop experience reported an average yield improvement of about 6.3% in both crops. Farmers with two years or less of cover crop experience saw modest yield gains of 3.4% in soybeans, and no statistical difference in corn. This shows the importance of a long-term approach to improving soil health with cover crops.
The impact of cover crops on net income can depend on how farmers incorporate cover crops into the overall farm. In the SARE survey, farmers who integrated livestock grazing into their cover crop program reported a 76% net increase in profit from the practice. Horticultural crop producers who participated in the survey found cover crops to be neutral or positive to their net income; 46% reported a minor or moderate increase, and 31% reported no change.
Despite these economic opportunities, research shows how important public support is to make these practices work for farmers and ranchers. As a reflection of their limited uptake, some studies have demonstrated how difficult it can be to make cover crops pay for themselves. For example, Plastina et al. have three studies surveying the costs and benefits of 16, 79, and 233 Midwestern row crop farmers who adopted cover crops by comparing their fields with cover crops to their fields without cover crops. Across all three studies, farmers saw negative net returns for cover crop adoption except when incentive payments or additional grazing revenue were included. This study underscores why taxpayer support for farmers to take the risk to try and maintain the planting of cover crops (and other soil health practices) is so important, even for the Big 3 Practices, which can help pay for themselves.
Nutrient Management
A 2023 review paper by Pawase et al. found that farmers growing corn who implement variable rate technology for application of nitrogen fertilizer could increase their annual profit as much as $417 per acre while reducing nitrogen application by 25%.
Another study by Langholtz et al. found that increasing the efficiency of nitrogen use by 20% across row crops in the United States could increase farmer net profits by 1.6% or more than $740 million while at the same time reducing nitrogen fertilizer requirements by 1.4 million tonnes (3.1 billion lbs.) per year.
Reduced Tillage or No-Till
Reducing tillage offers the quickest return on investment as fewer trips across the field (e.g., cutting corn passes from 5 to 2) saves on machinery costs (wear-and-tear) and diesel fuel, and offers considerable time savings to the producer.
In a recent publication, Joshi et al (2025) studied four states over 21 years and observed corn and soybean yields increased by 63% and 38%, respectively, while tillage intensity decreased. In addition, soil organic carbon (SOC) increased at a rate of more than 460 kg SOC-C per hectare per year (about 410 lb. per acre per year) during that time. SOC is crucial to plant productivity as it acts as a nutrient reservoir and enhances nutrient retention, reduces nutrient leaching, and improves nutrient cycling within the soil. This leads to improved nutrient availability for plants, promoting healthy growth and higher crop yields.
Combinations of Soil Health-Enhancing Conservation Practices
There are many economic analyses showing how individual farmers combined soil health practices and have reduced input costs, increased or stabilized yields, and enhanced net income.
For example, a study by Jacobs et al. showed that when both no-till and cover crops were used, the cost of cash crop production in the conservation system was 43% less than the cost of the conventional system ($29.67 per Mg of crop yield or $1.05 per bushel in the conventional till + bare to $17.04 per Mg of crop yield or $0.60 per bushel in the no-till + cover system), though yields did vary.
AFT’s soil health economic case studies featuring 21 “soil health successful” row crop farmers (corn, triticale, alfalfa, barley, soybeans, canola, wheat, hay, sorghum, oats) across 10 states (ID, IL, KY, MD, NY, OH, OK, PA, VA, & WI) who have adopted multiple practices over time, including cover crops, no-till, reduced till, nutrient management, and/or conservation crop rotation, achieved an increase in annual net income of $4.9 to $516 per hectare per year ($2 to $209 per acre per year), averaging $166 per hectare ($67 per acre). Additionally, the three California almond growers highlighted in AFT’s soil health economic case studies who adopted cover crops, nutrient management, compost application, and/or mulching conservation practices saw an increase in annual net income of $1,435 to $3,106 per hectare ($581 to $1,257 per acre), averaging $2,202 per hectare ($891 per acre).
But don’t just take our word for it! The Soil Health Institute (SHI) has studied multiple farmers and found positive economic results. In their 30 farm case studies, net income of farms adopting a soil health management system increased revenue by an average of $161 per hectare ($65 per acre) for 29 farms across 16 states ( AL, CA, CO, DE, GA, IA, ID, MN, MS, OR, SC, SD, TN, TX, WA, WI). These farms grow canola, chickpea, corn, cotton, dried bean, grain sorghum, millet, pea, peanut, rye, soybean, sunflower, walnut, and wheat. And they implemented no-till, reduced tillage, cover crops, crop rotation, nutrient management, and grazing.
In another study of 100 farms, SHI found increased net income for 85% of farmers growing corn and 88% of farmers growing soybeans. This occurred, in part, from reducing the average cost to grow corn by $59 per hectare ($24 per acre) and soybean by $42 per hectare ($17 per acre), and increased net farm income by an average of $128 per hectare ($52 per acre) for corn and $111 per hectare ($45 per acre) for soybean.
Public Investments are Essential to Increase Practice Adoption
To help farmers overcome adoption challenges and reap the numerous benefits of these practices, public investment remains essential. The US conservation delivery system has evolved over decades to provide locally relevant, on-the-ground support to farmers and ranchers to increase their adoption.
How does this work? USDA NRCS field agents, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and conservation NGOs work directly with farmers and ranchers across the country to develop conservation plans and provide cost share in the form of reimbursement to adopt and implement practices that address those concerns. And RCPP offers conservation districts, NGOs, states, and others the ability to help farmers and ranchers access EQIP, CSP, and the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP), by implementing these programs at a regional scale.
NRCS programs and conservation technical assistance are so popular that they are chronically oversubscribed — unable to meet farmer and rancher requests due to lack of funding. For instance, EQIP and CSP have historically had to turn away three-fourths of applicants. This is why programs supplementing these investments, like AMP and state-level conservation programs, are so important. This is also why current and future actions Congress is considering would make a huge difference. This includes:
Transferring remaining Inflation Reduction Act conservation funding into the Farm Bill to increase the baseline for future funding for EQIP, CSP, RCPP, and ACEP—as has been included in both the House and Senate 2025 Reconciliation bills making their way through Congress now, and
Maintaining Conservation Technical Assistance funding in this and future annual appropriations processes.
Pair this with increased support for peer-to-peer learning, as has been proposed in the Farmer to Farmer Education Act of 2025, and you have a robust and functional conservation delivery system that helps farmers and ranchers overcome the barriers they face in practice adoption. All of this works together to get them over the initial learning curve and early loss in revenue to where they are improving profitability, yields, and environmental outcomes over time. In addition, as we wait for more details for the new AMP initiative, we are hopeful that many of the multi-stakeholder PCSC projects will decide to re-apply and fulfill the significant potential economic and conservation gains that farmers, ranchers, and forest owners had by participating in the initial program. This new AMP initiative may be able to deliver significant productivity gains, economic support, and many conservation benefits to each participating producer.
Coming soon: A deeper dive into the conservation co-benefits of practices formerly known as climate smart.
